Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome

Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 22, 2010 09:10 AM

The question isn’t why Sarah Palin is helping John McCain. The question is: What are you doing to stop him from cementing his Big Government Republican legacy?

***

Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for The Right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight-message, consider this warning “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.” Conservatives have worked hard over the past year to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night.

Red Flag Number One: A reader from Arizona informed me the day after the Bay State Bombshell that he had received a robo-call from Massachusetts GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown. “He basically wanted me to vote for John McCain in November,” the reader said in his description of the automated campaign call supporting the four-term Sen. McCain’s re-election bid. “No wonder [Brown] said he hadn’t had any sleep…he was busy recording phone messages!”

Red Flag Number Two: Also in the wake of the Massachusetts special election, the nation’s most popular conservative political figure, Sarah Palin, announced she would be campaigning for her former running mate in Arizona in March. Palin told Facebook followers that she’s going to “ride the tide with commonsense candidates” and help “heroes and statesmen” like McCain. Facing mounting conservative opposition in his home state and polls showing him virtually tied with possible GOP challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, McCain welcomed the boost: “Sarah energized our nation and remains a leading voice in the Republican Party.”

Savor the irony: After a career spent bashing the right flank of the party, Sen. McCain is now clinging to its coattails to save his incumbent hide.

And pay attention to the hidden, more troubling irony: While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy.

In Florida, McCain’s Country First Political Action Committee is supporting the Senate bid of fellow illegal alien amnesty supporter and global warming alarmist, GOP Gov. Charlie Crist, whose crucial 2008 primary endorsement rescued McCain from disaster. Grass-roots conservatives support former GOP statehouse leader Marco Rubio – who is hitting Crist hard for lying to voters about his embrace of President Obama’s pork-laden, fraud-ridden stimulus package.

In Colorado, McCain and his meddlers infuriated the state party by anointing former lieutenant governor Jane Norton to challenge endangered Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet. She’s a milquetoast public official who has served on a lot of task forces and GOP clubs – and who happens to be the sister-in-law of big Beltway insider Charlie Black. An estimated 40 percent of her coffers are filled with out-of-state money (and much of that is flowing from the Beltway).

The mini-McCain of Colorado claims to oppose “special interests,” but has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from D.C. lobbyists at McCain’s behest – stifling the candidacy of strong conservative rivals led by grass-roots-supported Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, an amnesty opponent whose aggressive illegal immigration prosecutions have earned him the rage of the far Left and big business Right. A recent Rasmussen poll showed Buck and another GOP candidate Tom Wiens beating Bennet – despite the huge cash and crony advantage of front-runner and blank-slate Jane.

In California, McCain’s PAC supports former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina – a celebrity name with deep pockets of her own, massive media exposure, and a checkered business record. Fiorina served as the economic adviser to McCain, who supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, a $300 billion mortgage bailout, and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. As GOP rival and grass-roots-supported Chuck DeVore’s camp notes, Fiorina has also vacillated publicly over the Obama stimulus. With taxpayer “friends” like this, who needs Democrats?

With all due respect to McCain’s past noble war service, it’s time to head to the pasture. As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, he was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.

Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations – and it is imperative that they get in the game (as they did in Massachusetts) before it’s too late. The movement to restore limited government in Washington has come too far, against all odds, to succumb to McCain Regression Syndrome now.

Advertisements

Scenes from Eurabia: Women Should Know Their Place

Scenes from Scenes from Eurabia: Women Should Know Their Place :

Created 2007-08-21 10:31

“Women are simply not accepted by the Muslim community,” says Mohammed. “So women had also better not do this work.” Mohammed is my colleague social worker [integration civil servant] in Antwerp’s immigrant quarters. He looks at me gravely. “That is just the way it is, and that is why I prefer not to work with a woman, that simply doesn’t work.” He is complaining about another colleague, a Flemish woman who is his superior.

Mohammed does not think that this mentality about women and work is wrong. In fact, whoever questions this attitude is wrong because it is his culture and belief, which is why he accepts it, he “understands” it and we, Flemings, do not. Consequently we must accept it, until we “understand” as well.

He sighs. Yesterday it came to a clash with his female Flemish superior. Together with a team of mostly immigrant co-workers, she organizes meaningful recreational activities for the mostly Moroccan youths in the neighborhood. The Flemish superior is also close to despair. Working together with Mohammed is not plain sailing.

She has no support from her Moroccan colleagues. On the contrary, slowly but surely she is being frozen out. Whenever she appears in the square several older man gather round her and start speaking the Berber language with her male colleagues. “They want to marry you,” her male colleagues of Moroccan origin laugh, “because we said that you’re not married.” In the evening the men wait for her and bother her, why won’t she? Several girls of Moroccan origin grab her phone. Her Moroccan colleagues look the other way, also when older kids who always start arguments with her kick her shins until they are blue and threaten her.

She did not want to discuss the complete lack of fellowship, the negative attitude of the Moroccan colleagues. Her problem was Mohammed. He didn’t want to work together with her. He walked away during a conversation with her and went to pray in the meeting room, calling on Allah to stand by him in the discussion with a woman! Perplexity on the part of his female colleague.

Naturally she submitted her conflict with Mohammed, and his praying in the meeting room, to the management. Yes, it’s annoying, but now what? The problem was bought before the staff manager. Who, strangely enough, made a completely absurd accusation. Not Mohammed, but rather the female co-worker, had overstepped her bounds. She had threatened Mohammed and provoked aggression.

How? By questioning his actions. Yes, that’s what Mohammed had said. To the staff manager of course. The female colleague stands as if hit by lighting. She doesn’t weigh half as much as Mohammed, she would be mad to wake up aggression by somebody who could wipe her off the map, Mohammed is also a kickboxer, she is not that crazy! She is left with her feeling of powerlessness. Not Mohammed. In this conflict she is getting picked on.

Her complaint about Mohammed’s behavior was not taken seriously anywhere. It should be, since Mohammed discriminates against women in the workplace, he is being accused by female colleagues of sexual intimidation, and above all he doesn’t offer help to a colleague who is being assaulted by the target group. All for the simple reason that women shouldn’t be doing this work, because they are unacceptable for Mohammed and the target group, we must understand that, end of story.

Nobody confronts Mohammed about this utterly wrong attitude towards women. Worse still: the Antwerp authorities assume that by employing Mohammed they have “easier access” to the target group. In fact, the effect is usually the opposite. Mohammed supports the target group, shares a wrong attitude and doesn’t think of doing anything differently.

Because nobody has the courage to approach Mohammed about behavior that would be unacceptable in any other civil servant, we make no progress. Polarization and segregation increase and within a welfare system that employs thousands of social workers we are unable to achieve a change of attitude, which respects everybody regardless of origin, sex or belief.

bruessel_flugblatt-small.jpg

If the politicians procrastinate any longer, there will soon be huge protest marches in Brussels by everybody who has had enough. Because these disparities disrupt society: not skin color, but the behavior of target groups is why people are being excluded at work, from discos and swimming pools. It is time for everyone who has had enough to get together, in everybody’s interest.


Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2340

The Defeatocrat Agenda

The Defeatocrat Agenda
By Peter Brookes
New York Post | October 31, 2006

If the “Defeatocrats,” er, Democrats, triumph next week, taking the majority in Congress, expect U.S. foreign and defense policy to veer sharply left, with little guiding philosophy beyond ABB – Anything But Bush. For many Democrats and liberals, this vengeful approach may provide much-needed therapy after 12 bitter years in the minority. But it’s no basis for a defense or foreign policy.

Other than attacking what the Bush administration is doing, Democrats have done little to articulate foreign and national-security policies of their own. But here are some of the possible outcomes if the majority changes hands on Capitol Hill:

On Iraq, many Democrats – led by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) – have said they’d push for an immediate “redeployment” (i.e., withdrawal) of U.S. troops, leaving who-knows-what kind of nightmare behind.

A premature withdrawal would cause unimaginable instability in the Middle East. And there’s no doubt that jihadists would chalk up Iraq as proof positive that terrorism works – adding it to other “successes” in Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993).

Worse, an ignominious U.S. retreat would prove to countless other troublemakers that America is nothing more than a paper tiger.

A liberal majority would also drastically change course on North Korea, pushing for direct U.S. talks with dictator Kim Jong Il – despite his recent missile tests and nuclear blast. Caving in to Pyongyang’s demands for one-on-one negotiations would reward its nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on its nuclear kindred spirit, Iran.

Speaking of Iran, it’s not clear what a liberal congressional leadership would do. They don’t seem to say much about it – other than carp about the White House’s multilateral efforts to curb the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions.

But you could clearly forget about missile defenses to protect the homeland and troops deployed overseas. Liberals see such defenses as provocative. (In fact, leaving ourselves deliberately vulnerable to ballistic missiles is truly provocative – and foolhardy.)

What would a liberal Congress propose regarding the terrorists/terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay? Some of these prisoners are so dangerous even their own countries won’t take them back. What of the Patriot Act, Terrorist Surveillance Program or the terrorism-financing surveillance efforts that have been so successful in preventing another attack on the homeland for more than five years?

Here’s a clue: 90 percent of House Democrats voted against the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program; 80 percent voted against the terrorist interrogation bill. All these counterterror programs are at risk if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the speaker’s gavel next year . . .

OK, some will say: Don’t worry about Congress. The president holds the real power in foreign affairs and national security. Sure, the prez controls the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence community – the key tools of national security. But don’t constitutional checks and balances give Congress the almighty “power of the purse?”

Through the appropriation process, Congress can fund – or defund – our foreign-policy and national-security efforts, including wars, law enforcement, intelligence, defense and other counterterrorism programs.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), who’d become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, gave us a sneak preview of what the Dems might do: “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” You get the picture: No money – no war.

Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman hit the nail on the head: “America faces a critical question, will it elect leaders who recognize we’re at war and want to use every tool to win it, or politicians who would surrender important tools we need to win?”

The Liberals’ plan for our foreign affairs and national security has been to have no real plan at all, other than categorically opposing whatever the administration is doing to protect us. But having no strategy or policy for conducting our international affairs is certainly no way to keep us safe at home – or advance and protect our interests abroad.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Multicuturalism or National Suicide?? 2050: AmericaA Nation of Turtles — I don’t agree with Buchanan often but I do on this

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, October 20, 2006

Does it matter who was the 300 millionth “American”? Indeed, it does.

Police keep watch as demonstrators on both sides of the U.S. immigration debate chant slogans against each other’s beliefs in front of the Mexican consulate in New York October 7, 2006. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES)

If it was a baby born to an American, that is wonderful news. If it was a baby born to an illegal alien, it means we have lost control of our borders. And as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore. And if it was a Mexican who slipped over the Rio Grande in the early morning darkness of Oct. 17, it may be a harbinger of the end of America, as we knew her. If the people are not celebrating the 300 million along with the editorial writers, it is because there is a strong likelihood the individual added to our number is not an American at all, and because the extraordinary growth of the American family was not the free choice of the American people. We have 300 million here today only because the government of the United States refuses to enforce our immigration laws and the people were misled or lied to when the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. Who was the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings? Edward M. Kennedy. And what did Sen. Kennedy promise? Here are his own words of four decades ago: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. … The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.” Only haters would make such assertions, Kennedy thundered. “The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.” How good were the senator’s assurances? Today, we have 36 million immigrants and their children here, some 90 percent from Third World nations whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation. A third, 12 million, are here in violation of our laws. Most of those coming now are poor and uneducated, and are unable to speak our language. Some do not wish to become Americans. But they are sending our crime, poverty and disease rates skyward, and pulling U.S. academic scores down toward Third World levels. But what is most significant about these deep and irreversible alterations in the character of the nation is that the American people never voted for it and do not want it. It is being imposed from above, anti-democratically, by a regime that refuses to enforce our laws and is now at virtual war with the American people. Though immigration is the hottest domestic issue in 2006, and every candidate in a close race is taking a hard line on border security — even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence — the will of the people is ignored. According to a poll released Monday by The Center for Immigration Studies, 68 percent of Americans say immigration is too high. Only 2 percent believe it is too low. Yet the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and doubled the number of legal immigrants. The failure to restrict immigration so the Melting Pot can work, the refusal to seal the border despite what America wants, suggests ours has ceased to be a democratic republic. “Here, sir, the people rule!” used to be a proud boast. Today, the line is laughable. In my book “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” I projected that by 2050, every city in America would look like Los Angeles, and Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest would look like Mexico City. And what is happening to Los Angeles? According to Robert Putnam, Harvard political scientist and author of “Bowling Alone,” the trust among people in “this most diverse human habitation in human history” is now at rock bottom, the lowest anywhere he could find. “In the presence of diversity,” said Putnam, “we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities we don’t trust people who look like us.” The more people of different races that live in a community, the greater the loss of trust, said Putnam. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people, and they don’t trust institutions. … The only thing there is more of is protest marches and TV watching.” Welcome to the Brave New World our elites are creating for our children, as they consign the America we grew up in to the compost heap of history.  

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy’s Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy’s Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) – The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

“We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger,” said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to “confidential contacts” so Andropov could be alerted to the senator’s proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

“Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,” Kengor said. “But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”

In Kennedy’s view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan’s unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

“Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,” Kengor said. “He hoped to counter Reagan’s polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.”

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow — to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor’s estimation.

“If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can’t imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “Things could have gotten ugly.”

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan’s policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a “gracious concession” after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.